ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags wtc2 , wtc , wtc1 , world trade center , nist , debate , 911 conspiracy theory

Reply
Old 28th March 2007, 06:20 PM   #1
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
Debate! What debate?

At the present time there are THREE main theories that claim to explain the collapse of WTC 1 & 2:

1. The “official theory”: The collapse events were natural, gravitationally driven, processes that were brought on by localized damage caused by the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.

2. Dr. Steven Jones’ theory: The collapse events were man-made processes caused by the timed ignition of pre-planted explosives or incendiary devices.

3. Dr. Judy Wood’s theory: The collapse events were man-made processes induced by an external source of directed energy.

Needless to say, each of these theories has its supporters and its detractors. Indeed, so much has been written on the pros and cons of each of these theories that there is little to be gained in going over all the arguments one more time. However, if any WTC collapse theory is to gain full acceptance it must, at the very minimum, be able to explain certain well-documented phenomena such as:

· Sudden on-set of the collapse of each tower
· Near free fall descent of the block of floors above each impact zone
· Pulverization and ejection of concrete during the collapse
· The completeness of the destruction of each tower
· Sustained high temperatures in the rubble pile long after 9/11

Most, if not all, of these phenomena have been quoted as being problematic in some way to the currently proposed collapse theories. I therefore believe the time is right to propose a new theory that addresses the shortcomings of the existing theories. With this in mind I have developed such a theory and have been testing it out on selected audiences. Because I naively believed that the CTists would be the most receptive of a new WTC collapse theory I sent an e-mail detailing my theory to the following list of prominent 9/11 researchers:

David Ray Griffin, Jim Fetzer, Steven Jones, Judy Wood, Phil Jayhan, Eric Hufschmid, Jim Hoffman, Jimmy Walter, Gordon Ross, Ace Baker and Kevin Barrett.

Here’s what each had to say:

1. DRG: No reply
2. JF: No reply
3. SJ: No reply
4. JW: No reply
5. PJ: Liked it a lot – said it was better than anything Jones or Wood had to offer!
6. EH: Said it doesn’t matter HOW it was done, only WHO did it.
7. JH: No reply
8. JW: Thought it was “interesting” but not the main modus operandi.
9. GR: No reply
10. AB: No reply
11. KB: Said I was “stretching the facts to fit a theory.”

First, I should note that I have been in e-mail contact with all of these people, off-and-on, for up to two years. This, however, is the first time that an e-mail I have sent to some or all of these researchers has gone unanswered by so many of them. Interestingly, most of those who failed to respond are individuals who have strongly aligned themselves with a particular WTC collapse theory. Perhaps a new theory is simply too much of a paradigm shift for them! Yet the non-responding individuals all claim to be honest, objective, investigators who apply scientific deductive reasoning to reveal the TRUTH about 9/11. Therefore you would think that these truth seekers would have SOMETHING to say about a new theory, one, I might add that presents a considerable body of physical evidence to support its claims. However, all I hear from the Truthers is the SOUND OF SILENCE!

Thus I would say that the GREAT 9/11 DEBATE, if there ever was one, was over before it began.

“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

Paul Simon, The Boxer.
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 06:28 PM   #2
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
I would suggest submitting it to the following sources for review:
sciam.com
asme.org
asce.org
skeptic.com
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 06:30 PM   #3
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
I don't recall getting an email about this. Sorry if it went in my junk folder. I suggest posting here:

http://www.911researchers.com/

-Ace Baker

Last edited by TruthSeeker1234; 28th March 2007 at 06:33 PM.
TruthSeeker1234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 06:34 PM   #4
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Greetings, Apollo. I'll start with your first "well-documented" phemonenon:

Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
· Sudden on-set of the collapse of each tower
Since the onset of each collapse was gradual, as is evident by the inward and progressive bowing of the exterior columns, I think you need to rework that one.

By the way, will you be posting your theory here?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 28th March 2007 at 06:36 PM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 06:35 PM   #5
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
However, if any WTC collapse theory is to gain full acceptance it must, at the very minimum, be able to explain certain well-documented phenomena such as:

· Sudden on-set of the collapse of each tower
· Near free fall descent of the block of floors above each impact zone
· Pulverization and ejection of concrete during the collapse
· The completeness of the destruction of each tower
· Sustained high temperatures in the rubble pile long after 9/11
Yep, which is why the one put forth by NIST is accepted by 99.9999% of the world's structural engineers.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 06:48 PM   #6
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
This is part of what I sent:

Let’s consider the evidence for molten iron at the WTC and the crucial question of molten steel in the rubble pile at Ground Zero. While this topic has been debated on many 9/11 websites, nearly all of the arguments I have seen rely on visual sightings of “molten metal” in the rubble pile - information drawn from eyewitness accounts recalled by recovery workers. This type of anecdotal evidence has been strongly criticized for its lack of scientific credibility. Remarkably, however, there is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2 that has apparently been completely ignored by 9/11 researchers.
I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed.

Each of the references below specifically mentions the detection of iron spherules in WTC dust samples (and in most cases also provides electron micrographs of the particles in question). Reference 1 includes two such micrographs labeled IRON-03-IMAGE and IRON-04-IMAGE. Reference 2 discusses which WTC particles could best be used as signatures of WTC dust; iron spheres were considered and rejected only because they were not found in all indoor dust samples. In reference 3 we read on page 17: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.” And finally in reference 4 we find a micrograph of a spherical iron particle and the comment that WTC dust contains evidence for “heat effected particles, including spherical particles.”


1. H. A. Lowers et al. “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust.” USGS Open-File Report 2005-1165, (2005)

2. Various authors: “U.S. EPA Response to the Peer Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Report on the World Trade Center Dust Screening Study.” Page 28, (December 2006)

3. R. J. Lee et al. “Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property: WTC Dust Signature Report on Composition and Morphology.” Issued December 2003.

4. S. R. Badger et al. “World Trade Center Particulate Contamination Signature Based on Dust Composition and Morphology.” Microscopy and Microanalysis 10 (Supplement 2), 948, (2004).

The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes, (See for example: Steel Research 64, 23, (1993) and Steel Research 72, 324 (2001)). Iron spheres in the 30 micron to sub-micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses.

In seeking an explanation of the formation of iron spherules during the destruction of WTC 1 & 2 it is significant that samples of WTC dust have an additional chemical signature - an enrichment of zinc. Data for iron and zinc in WTC aerosol samples have been presented by S. Qureshi and co-workers in Atmospheric Environment 40, S238, (2006). We first note that concentrations of these elements in PM2.5 aerosol collected in New York City prior to 9/11 were about 100 ng/m3 for iron and less than 20 ng/m3 for zinc. Qureshi’s data show that on September13 2001 the PM2.5 iron concentration was 127 ng/m3 and the zinc concentration was 217 ng/m3, i.e. airborne zinc concentrations were about ten times higher than normal. Qureshi’s data also show that both iron and zinc concentrations in New York’s 2.5-micron dust peaked in early October 2001 with iron at 370 ng/m3 and zinc at a remarkable 1028 ng/m3. These observations are consistent with iron and zinc data reported by the EPA for WTC air monitoring samples collected in the same post-9/11 time period.

Why was so much zinc dispersed into the air above Ground Zero? In order to answer this question we need to consider sources of zinc in the Twin Towers. A review of the construction materials in these buildings shows that the galvanized 22-gauge corrugated sheet steel, used for the decking that supported the floor concrete, was a major source of zinc. Given that 22-gauge galvanized steel has a coating of about 50 microns of zinc on a 1 mm sheet of metal comprised of ~ 98 % iron, we may use a reasonable estimate of 14 tonnes for the mass of steel decking per floor to conclude that there was about 1.4 tonnes of metallic zinc on every floor in WTC 1 & 2.
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 06:48 PM   #7
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,725
· Sudden on-set of the collapse of each tower

It wasn't sudden. The outer columns slowly deformed, being pulled inwards until they gave way.

· Near free fall descent of the block of floors above each impact zone

Not quite sure what you mean here, but if you mean the time it took for the towers to collapse, it was no where near freefall.Freefall for tower 2 was 9 secs and for tower 1 10 secs. The collapses were around 16 and 18 seconds respectively, nearly TWICE freefall speeds.

· Pulverization and ejection of concrete during the collapse

Much of the dust was actually from drywall, glass ceiling tiles, windows, and office equipment rather than concrete. A lot of concrete survived in large chunks in the debris pile and the ejected material itself was often up to 5cm[sup]2[/sub] in size. (See Dr Jones on that one, he got a sample and found that out)

· The completeness of the destruction of each tower

Another myth. The rubble was about 7 stories high, survivors of the tower 1 collapse having to make their way up and out of it. To give you some impression of that size of rubble, I work in one of the tallest buildings in my city. It's only 8 stories.

· Sustained high temperatures in the rubble pile long after 9/11

This isn't really strange. Coal and Bog fires have been known to burn and smoulder underground for years if not decades. There were a lot of cumbustable material in the towers so that they continued to remain hot is not at all surprise. In fact a situation similar to the debris piles was used in ancient times to smelt the first steel!
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 06:50 PM   #8
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
Gravy:
Please define the word "gradual"
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 06:56 PM   #9
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,725
Zinc has a melting point of 419.58 °C, well within the range of the WTC fires. It is also known that an amount of steel was attacked by sulphur (possibly from the gypsum drywall) and formed a Eutectic mixuture that would have allowed the iron to melt at a lower temperature. This could be an explaination for the larger amount of iron sphericals.

As to the "Molten Iron" there has never been any actual evidence presented, just speculation and second-hand reports of what someone said. That and the quotes themselves generally refer to "metal" and not "steel."
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:05 PM   #10
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:08 PM   #11
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,156
Odd. I sent my Theory to those same 10 guys and 1 girl and got the identical responses. Maybe they all have an autoreply thing going on? Anyway my theory is that a freakish-sized (as opposed to a normal-sized), invisibility-shielded, fire-breathing Godzilla type creature is responsible for wreaking all the havoc on 9/11. It's simple, elegant and even satisfies the timeline. And the tracks Godzilla made as it traipsed from NYC to Washington then back to NYC then to Cleveland then back to NYC: Notice how many "new" lakes just happened to pop up in those areas soon afterwards? As Goddy's tracks filled with rainwater? This whole thing might have just been all about a promotion of sport fishing, gone overboard.

Seriously: You will either have to post your complete theory here, or we will all have to guess. You'll probably get raked over the coals either way but the guesstimates will be more cruel.
ConspiRaider is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:10 PM   #12
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
You left some building material out your zinc equation. All metal studs in every drywall partition are galvanized which includes the hat channel thats used to furr out around columns or pipes. Also the ceiling grid is galvanized. And most office furniture that is made from steel is routinely galvanized even though it is painted or powder coated during its manufacture.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:12 PM   #13
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
Gravy:
Please define the word "gradual"
From photos and videos, bowing is apparent in both towers for many minutes before collapse. More than 20 minutes before the north tower collapsed, a NYPD aviation unit reported that the south wall of the north tower was glowing and didn't have long to go. Photo evidence confirms progressive bowing until collapse. People on the ground believed the top was askew. Before the south tower collapsed, the north tower was ordered evacuated because FDNY in the lobby saw signs of movement in the building. Mostly, the photo and video evidence is clear: there were clear signs that both buildings were in serious trouble long before they collapsed. The NIST report covers this in depth.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:14 PM   #14
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
You left some building material out your zinc equation. All metal studs in every drywall partition are galvanized which includes the hat channel thats used to furr out around columns or pipes. Also the ceiling grid is galvanized. And most office furniture that is made from steel is routinely galvanized even though it is painted or powder coated during its manufacture.
And there's a much larger source of zinc: about 150 acres of galvanized steel floor decking, coated on both sides.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:16 PM   #15
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?
If the posters here are so automatonic, so logically fallacious, so near-sighted and self-congratulatory; then why are you here?
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:18 PM   #16
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
And there's a much larger source of zinc: about 150 acres of galvanized steel floor decking, coated on both sides.
he used the floor decking in his second post i believe.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:18 PM   #17
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
I think you just made my point
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:19 PM   #18
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
Go Apollo, you have my attention. Greening (NEU-FONZE) has been posting similar stuff on Physorg.
TruthSeeker1234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:20 PM   #19
cloudshipsrule
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,170
Quote:
In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects.
Then why is it the hundreds of professionals who have reviewed the NIST report disagree with that statement? Why haven't they come forward about the errors? What is your background to be able to definitively say the NIST report is seriously flawed?
cloudshipsrule is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:20 PM   #20
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,760
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while...
<removed all of the usual BS that sockpuppet tinhatters post when they "first" arrive here>
I call (and this time, the big "gotcha" will be, "ohhh, but Greening says...." as if we don't know already know). SSDD. (Same socks, different day).

Last edited by LashL; 28th March 2007 at 07:25 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:21 PM   #21
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
I think you just made my point
So you are saying. The towers collapsed because they had galvanized building material in them?
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:22 PM   #22
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
I think you just made my point
There is a quote feature on this forum; I recommend using it as it facilitates others in knowing to whom you are replying.
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:23 PM   #23
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
he used the floor decking in his second post i believe.
Ah, very good. I saw yours before I saw his.

Edit: I believe, but I'm not certain, that the tower structural steel was painted with red zinc oxide paint. I'll have to look into that some day.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 28th March 2007 at 07:29 PM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:27 PM   #24
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?
Well, since you believed the onset of the tower collapses was sudden, it looks like you've got some chapter-and-versing to do.

A couple of questions about the iron particles:

1) How did measurements of that size and type of particle made after the collapses differ from measurements made previously, if any?

2) What is the "official" explanation for the presence of those particles, if any?

3) When were the measurements that you are using made? (I don't know if I'll have access to each article you listed, and I'm thinking about the effects of all that torch cutting of steel.)

And just from my own curiosity, how did Ace Baker make it on your list?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 28th March 2007 at 07:52 PM. Reason: clarification
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:27 PM   #25
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
From photos and videos, bowing is apparent in both towers for many minutes before collapse. More than 20 minutes before the north tower collapsed, a NYPD aviation unit reported that the south wall of the north tower was glowing and didn't have long to go. Photo evidence confirms progressive bowing until collapse. People on the ground believed the top was askew. Before the south tower collapsed, the north tower was ordered evacuated because FDNY in the lobby saw signs of movement in the building. Mostly, the photo and video evidence is clear: there were clear signs that both buildings were in serious trouble long before they collapsed. The NIST report covers this in depth.
The ironic thing being, that the truthers use the fact that people thought it might collapse as proof of a conspiracy. That is when they are not insisting that its collapse was sudden and unexpected.

Consistency is not their strong point.
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:28 PM   #26
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Excuse me I just cought this..

Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post

David Ray Griffin, Jim Fetzer, Steven Jones, Judy Wood, Phil Jayhan, Eric Hufschmid, Jim Hoffman, Jimmy Walter, Gordon Ross, Ace Baker and Kevin Barrett.

.
Excuse me a moment.. You wrote to a piano player? were you hoping to put your theory to bad music?
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:28 PM   #27
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,156
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
I call (and this time, the big "gotcha" will be, "ohhh, but Greening says...." as if we don't know already know). SSDD. (Same socks, different day).
Yepster!

I'm gonna have my people call the Vegas people so we can get a betting line down on this thread. There's Benjamins to be made and time's a wastin'.

Should the line be on which sock Apollo20 is, or what his New Theory is, or both?

I'm also calling my stockbroker and asking about zinc futures...
ConspiRaider is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:28 PM   #28
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:
Are you saying that you are typical of the types of 9-11 Deniers we get here? Because I would say just from reading your few posts so far that you are not very typical except perhaps in your overconfidence that you will best those here. Present your evidence. If people abuse you, put them on ignore.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:31 PM   #29
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
It is helpful to look for “chemical signatures” for the presence of X in the rubble pile. This requires careful scrutiny of the available data on gaseous emissions at Ground Zero. For example, consider the Report on Air Sampling Near the World Trade Center Site: New York State Department of Health, October 30 & 31, 2001.” In this document we find that air sampling of the smoke plume on the rubble pile over one month after 9/11 measured 33.9 mg/m3 of HCl as well as 2.24 mg/m3 of HNO2 and 12.28 mg/m3 of HNO3. The presence of these acid gases in the air above the WTC rubble pile at this time is consistent with the emission of Cl2, HCl, N2O, NO, and H2O from the slow decomposition of X.

Prof. T. A. Cahill at U.C. Davis has also published data on aerosol samples collected at or near Ground Zero in October 2001. (See Aerosol Science and Technology 38, 165, (2004)) Among the data reported by Cahill is a mass spectrum of 5 – 2.5 micron particulate collected from within the smoke plume on Varick Street. In agreement with the results noted above, the mass spectrum’s three strongest peaks reveal the presence of Cl, NO2 and NO3. However, Cahill suggests that the detection of chlorine may be explained by “ the relatively large chlorine inventory in the WTC buildings from plastics, including the ubiquitous PVC, and chlorine-bleached paper.” Let us therefore briefly review data on chlorinated species at the WTC in relation to studies of the behavior of chlorine-containing materials such as PVC in building and other related fires.

Analytical data reported by the US EPA derived from air monitoring at, or near, Ground Zero in the period September 2001 to May 2002 show that many chlorinated organic species were present at significant levels up to December 2001. These included aliphatic species such as chloroform, chloroethane and di-chloroethane as well as the aromatic compounds chlorobenzene and di-chlorobenzene. The chlorinated compounds detected may be arranged into two groups: chlorinated species produced by the thermal degradation of PVC and chlorinated species that are not derived from PVC decomposition. The PVC-derived designation was arrived at from published data on the thermal decomposition of PVC, (See for example: Journal of Polymer Science 12, 737, (1974)). Apart from HCl, which is indeed a major product of the thermal degradation of PVC, the major decomposition products from heating PVC in the temperature range 300 – 500 °C are: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, chlorobenzene, di-chlorobenzene and tri-chlorobenzene. All these species were observed in the air at Ground Zero.
However, the most interesting feature of the EPA data is the fact that the non-PVC-derived chlorinated species are more abundant than the PVC-derived species. This clearly demonstrates the presence of another major source of chlorine, above and beyond “the ubiquitous PVC” previously postulated by Prof. Cahill as the most likely source of the elevated levels of chlorine in air samples collected at Ground Zero up to December 2001.

An alternative source of chlorine suggested by Prof. Cahill, namely chlorine-bleached paper, may also be ruled out as a major contributor to chlorine emissions at Ground Zero. Thus, while there certainly was a large amount of paper in the Twin Towers, a reasonable upper limit would be 500 kg per office x 100 offices per floor, or 50 tonnes of paper per floor. However, paper typically contains no more than 0.5 wt. % of chlorine so that each floor would have contributed a maximum of only 250 kg of chlorine to the total inventory of chlorine in the Twin Towers.

The USGS XRF spectra of WTC dust particles include over a dozen spectra labeled as CONCRETE. Most of these spectra show peaks for chlorine, (K-alpha at 2.62 keV), and sulfur, (K-alpha at 2.31 keV). The height of these peaks relative to the height of the calcium peaks allows one to estimate the chlorine and sulfur content of the concrete particles being analyzed and shows that the concrete particles in the USGS samples contained up to 3 % chlorine!

The NIST Report NCSTAR 1-5 provides data for plastic materials in a typical WTC workstation. These data indicate that there was about 1.5 tonnes of PVC-derived chlorine per floor. This estimate actually ignores the contribution from PVC-derived chlorine in the vinyl asbestos tiles used in the WTC flooring. This amounted to about 0.3 tonnes of chlorine per floor. If all of the available chlorine combined with the 600 tonnes of concrete per floor there would be a maximum concentration of 1.8/600 x 100 % or 0.3 % chlorine in the concrete. Thus we see that the measured chlorine was ten times higher that it should have been based on known sources of chlorine in the WTC concrete dust.
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:32 PM   #30
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade View Post
If the posters here are so automatonic, so logically fallacious, so near-sighted and self-congratulatory; then why are you here?
High-five!
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:33 PM   #31
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story.

[Lengthy complaint about "Appeal To Authority" deleted]

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?
Let me reply to the substantive part of your message only.

If you have genuine problems with NIST, that's terrific. Let's hear them. If your concerns are valid, then we can move to the question of whether your concerns push us towards a truly alternative theory (e.g. bombs in towers) or whether it merely means the fundamental NIST hypothesis is correct, but requires refinement.

Now then, going down your list:

1. [NIST] is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower.

It is? In what way?

2. [NIST] assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse.

Well, duh. It is trivial to compute that collapse of a single floor leads to a runaway energy condition, even if all the remaining floors are in blueprint condition. Since several floors were weakened by impact and fire, the requirement for global collapse is handily satisfied. I refer you, as I have many others, to Greening. And don't reply with Gordon Ross; been there, refuted that.

3. [NIST]'s fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless.

Explain. NIST seemed to think they were useful. Why should we believe you? And you aren't confusing their test cases with their actual model, are you? The two aren't meant to be the same.

4. [NIST]'s assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation.

Speculation, but plausible, even likely given the impact dynamics of an airplane crash. Not speculation as in "a stab in the dark." It's only speculative in that nobody survived to take pictures of the insulation, nor did any piece survive the collapse. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the insulation remained intact? Or are you just casting aspersions for the heck of it?

5. [NIST] ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires.

This perhaps could be a detail that could use refinement, yes. But I don't see it as conflicting with NIST's overall conclusions. If anything, it should make tower collapse more likely.

6. [NIST]'s metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse.

Everything I've read, such as Lioy et. al., says there were no such "micron sized spheres" of iron. I saw you list some sources and will check them out, but even if such spheres exist, you are a long way from proving molten iron at any stage of the event, yet you treat it like it's a known fact. Help us out, here.

7. [NIST] mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination.

Details, please. The sulfidation thing is interesting, but is in direct opposition to both Jones' and Wood's alternate collapse theories, while consistent with NIST's. I'd like to learn more about it too, but only out of scientific curiosity. Chlorination is new, but I also don't see it supporting anything other than NIST's ultimate conclusion.

8. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?

That's a lie, through and through. NIST released its preliminary long ago. The final is due out soon. NIST is governed by availability of experts and funding. You're fussing about what, the release date? Impatient, aren't we?

That's eight out of eight that are either non sequitur or support NIST, and I haven't even opened it yet. So, if you want to hold an intelligent discussion about these things, please do. Perhaps you know something that I don't. But I'm hardly inclined to treat you respectfully until you show some maturity.

Deal?
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:34 PM   #32
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Well, I guess I'll wait until the serial novel is posted, and Apollo has the chance to answer some of our questions.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:37 PM   #33
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 11,286
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
Gravy:
Please define the word "gradual"
As long as it is proper to ask for supporting definitions:

Please define the word "sudden," as you used it initially.

Please define what is "near" free fall speeds. How close to free fall (in % or time) would a collapse have to be to meet your definition?

Please define what is meant by "completeness" when talking about destruction. Is there something about this collapse in terms of "completeness" that is unusual? What do you compare it to?

And as long as we're at it: "sustained high temperatures" and "long after 9/11" should be defined. How high a temperature, for how long after, and what are you comparing it to in order to call it "high" in this context?
NoZed Avenger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:43 PM   #34
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
Yes, Please wait....

Your skepticism is to be expected, your cynicism is not!
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 07:47 PM   #35
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,156
So excess chlorine is the smoking gun after all. I think I know where this is going.

The WTC complex was actually being used as the world's largest Manchurian Candidate Generating Plant.

Folks'd come in to work, get jumped by elevator shaft ninjas, then CHLOROFORMED and dragged into brain-recircuiting wards honeycombed within the entire WTC complex. For God only knows what evil tasks.

An observant stairs janitor happened to notice unconscious, CHLOROFORMED workers being dragged up and down the stairs (elevators too risky, all them tourists). The janitor called Cheney and the entire operation was scrubbed (with chlorine bleach).

And that's how Dr. K-hill, U.S. Marshall, uncovered the dastardly scheme, using nothing but a magnifying glass, common sense and a gas chromatograph / mass spectrometer.

Said K-hill: "It's the chlorine, stupid! And where's my lunch?!? And how come my secretary didn't order more chili?!? I'm down to my last 53 cans!"

Last edited by ConspiRaider; 28th March 2007 at 07:52 PM.
ConspiRaider is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 08:02 PM   #36
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
I've just scanned -- very quickly, mind you, reading these properly will take some time -- the references provided by Apollo20 regarding molten metal, including molten iron.

So far I see nothing unexpected. I've found no indication that the amount of iron melted was particularly large, or any indication of any single specimen containing a volume of melted iron, such as we would expect if "thermite" had cut through a ruddy 20" column or two. What is observed in the RJ Lee Group Inc. Report is that the WTC plume contained higher concentrations of molten metals -- including but not dominated by iron -- only compared to other dust samples at the time, not that it was in any way unexpected.

The other reports, notably the USGS Particle Atlas, mostly remark that iron is commonly confused with its oxide in EDS studies. Iron oxide would be quite common apart from structural steel, as would other oxides like titanium oxide, a substantial signal of which was found by Lioy -- from white paint. The RJ Lee Group Report is also using visible microscopy, so they have indeed found instances of elemental iron rather than iron oxide, but there is no quantitative analysis provided.

I would also like to propose that a substantial amount of iron could be melted at the moment of aircraft impact, through simple friction. When 10,000 gallons of fuel suddenly shoot through a building at 500 knots, the amount of turbulent abrasion expected is staggering, and quite a lot of iron might have been eroded (worked, yes, perhaps even melted) into small droplets at that time. Recall that the kinetic energy of each crash was sufficient to destroy an entire floor's worth of columns, had it all gone into destroying columns and not mostly been expended in other ways. And that doesn't take the combustion energy into account, nor does it take the combustion energy contained in the towers into account. Anyway, such a collision might explain the micron-sized iron droplets as well -- and be completely consistent with NIST.

Apollo20, I thank you sincerely for the references. I will digest them more thoroughly.

But you are way off your mark in leveling such sweeping accusations against NIST at this stage in the game. You are not ready to do so. Get back to work.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 08:07 PM   #37
The Great Hairy One
Chief Cdr Scientist, NWO Cloning Labs
 
The Great Hairy One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,054
I'd like to see Apollo20 answer R.Mackey's questions.

Cheers,
TGHO
The Great Hairy One is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 08:17 PM   #38
chippy
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 521
Why is Apollo getting such an icy reception here? What the hell happened to our manners? Is it because he pointed out that we seem more devoted to shutting down truthers than we are to the truth these days? Because I hate to break it to you, but he's right on the money with that statement.
chippy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 08:20 PM   #39
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
I would also like to propose that a substantial amount of iron could be melted at the moment of aircraft impact, through simple friction.
The anti-tank sabot round fired by an Abrams tank is not explosive. It penetrates and melts the armor of its target from kinetic energy alone, setting the enemy tank ablaze.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 08:21 PM   #40
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
He drew first blood in post #10.

I'm game for an intelligent conversation, but so far I don't see that he's supported his contention -- very strongly worded -- that NIST is "seriously flawed." If he can back that up, then we can discuss it in perfect calm and respect.

Your move, Apollo20.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.